Ah well that was disappointing, I had all these film shots to show you!
Can't wait, I've been going through your old stuff and looking at film samples to find out if any characteristics matches what I want
Wife's miffed the fridge is full now...

EXIF, lol, film to digital lol! Hmm, with such a high ISO film, I would assume that the f/8 @ 100 would be doable handheld! I stuck with what I reasoned based on the in door scene and DOF, but, I am still trying to grasp every detail concerning DSLR, film, composition, and photography in general! If you did use a tripod however, I guess that f/11 could be achieved plus the blurred motion could be due to the slower shutter speed as well, and not due to higher shutter freesing action?!?

Okay, putting on my serious hat, the way I shoot Delta 3200 is to maximise the shadows, and even push the shapes into full black silhouettes, with less regard for critical sharpness (Afterall I am after the luscious grain shining through and it _is_ ISO 3200 film). It works very well for the effect and end result that I want, but unfortunately not so much for others.

In other words, I use it as a specialised tool. Which is why I don't often shoot with it, only those which I can pre-visualise or that I've somehow stumbled upon those that can match the aesthetic that I have in mind.

So sometimes I don't meter but go into a scene with the best I can handhold (1/FL or less), and hope for the best (like 'late night pastafarian' a few pages back, didn't want to linger in the alleyway for far too long). There's a lot of latitude in the film anyway, and/or at least how the fella who processes them for me has got them out that way. I'm also happy to shoot in A mode for streets - I am of the opinion that the moment for those are far too precious than the technicals.

Coming back to 'free coffee day' (and every other scene for that matter), there's no magical setting for indoors or otherwise. The mall is darker than most (it's supposed to be a luxury mall), it was morning, it's naturally-lit by those monstrous skylights up in the ceiling. If I'm not wrong, I made do with f/4 and 1/50, the latter because I was in a rush, just wrapped up a meeting and my boss wasn't going to wait for me to take a shot of the cafe, had two cups of coffee which is more than my daily quota, and shooting through glass. You learn and adapt, though admittedly I can't read the light consistently as I should/want to.

I must say that I'm very glad I had the experience and luxury of wanton experimentation from digital; those lessons served me well in film. My mind, body, fingers and composure now automatically compensate for the mistakes I might or would have made. And oddly, because it's film, I beat myself up less, knowing I did the best I could, que sera sera

13.5cm 3.5. Per the exif I took this with the lens wide open. No clue why, other than being in a hurry.

I am not sure which peak it is. This is from the grounds of Pittock Mansion, looking east so that the sun is behind the mountain on a foggy morning. Would love to have tried that on a clear day in the late afternoon.

Next two with the 55 1.2 S, at f/8 and f/4.
Green zone in the middle of the road for bikers in downtown Portland.

Ronny, you need to put all those 135mm f2 flower pictures you have taken in the Swedish summer and publish a photo book!

Dean, amazing scenes of such a pleasant vacation spot!!

Ray, thanks, there's a few more I will dig out and post from the catch at Oregon. The place definitely needs a lot more time to do it justice than I had.

John, thanks for the tip. I google mapped Mt. Hood from Pittock Mansion, and it is exactly in the direction I was pointing the camera at, about 60-80 miles as the crow flies.

Here's a pic with the 10.5cm f4 T, a curious lens that was manufactured only for a year or so. It has a the preset aperture mechanism similar to the one on the 28 3.5 PC, and an interesting aperture shape, especially when slightly less than wide open. The lens is longer than the f/2.5 versions at that focal length, but much narrower (34.5mm instead of the standard 52mm), and lighter. Only 3 glass elements in it, I believe it was meant to be a low cost alternative to the original 10.5cm f2.5 but must not have been exactly popular.

Two quick grab-shots from today, the architecture of my hometown as subject while walking to my parking car ;-)

institut of anatomy, D700 and 24/2 Ai - a "centered view" would be more pleasing, maybe I re-shoot this one with the 28/3.5PC

D700, 24/2 Ai - a place dedicated to a church that was damaged 1943 and finally teared down 1957-60
I've tried to create something like a "concrete-light-look" with rich exposure and Nik SilverEfex ;-)

A maybe its who you know-story. This lens was recently repaired by Nikon in California. I talked my brother into giving me his 105MM F1.8 lens for my 80th. birthday. When we removed it from its hiding place, the focus and blades were jammed. I immediately thought re-lube and iam on my way. We took it to Tucson Camera Repair. The shop said the lens barrel was out of round ? The lens was purchased by my brother new in 1989, was boxed and near mint condition. They then told my brother they were sending it to Nikon on the West coast. I told my brother to tell the shop they might not work on it or be able t o repair it. The owner stated the boss at Nikon, CA , was a good friend of his. The lens had the bad part replaced and now looks and works pretty much as new. I have no idea how something metal gets out of round from just setting in a closet. This lens seems to loose its sharpness after about F5.6 to F8.0 , unlike the 105 F2.5 . Should have fantisic background seperation wide open. Any other owners who can comment on this lens sharpness etc. ?
Harry Palmer